Commenting on Anarkismo.net editorial policy

As Anarkismo.net is a site for anarchist communist news and discussion rather than for discussion of the Anarkismo.net project itself we either hide or move comments on editorial policy on most threads. This thread however is specifically created for the discussion of Anarkismo.net and Anarkismo.net editorial policy

Some ground rules

To be sure of a response you'd be better off using the
Contact Us button
- we answer all serious queries we recieve that way - responses here
will depend on individual editors finding the time to write them.

- it might be fair enough to ask for clarification of a response
but comments just repeating the same thing again and again will be
hidden.

In general make sure you follow all the other
Commenting
Guidelines - the only guideline suspended in this thread is the
one that forbids editorial discussion. So for instance don't be
abusive and don't troll.

Pasted in editorial comments

Comments on Anarkismo.net and editorial comments left on other
threads may be pasted in here if an editor feels it would be a good
idea to explain why they are being removed. They will be
deleted from the thread they were placed on - in nearly all
cases it is too much work for us to only edit out the offending part.
In such cases the author is free to add an edited version of
the comment onto the original story with the offending bits removed.

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

Posted as a comment on http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1662

First i would like to mention that the text in arabic you put in your website is NOT the translation of the texts in french, italian, english ... I wonsder why you pubished some texts in french but not the one of this text ... May be you just "forget" ... or may be it is because it is from the CNT AIT and not from the WSM friends of Vignoles and AL ...

I don't know how to publish on anarkismo so i just want to inform you that you will find versin of this text in french, spanish, english, turkish, arabic, russian ... It would be ggod toplace the on anarkismo, no ?

So, if you want to give the readers of Anarkismo a real view inside the life in popular suburb, i just invite you to read (and translate) the text "MON QUARTIER A L'HEURE DU MARECHAL".

It has been written in may of 2005 by the "suburb group" of the local union CNT AIT (BTW the only suburb group in the frencha narchist movement ...) and it explains the daily life in those quarters. It allows to understand why it has exploded.

The text in Arabic clearly says (in western writing even) that the text is of the CNT-AIT. It cannot be, therefore, mistaken by texts of Vignoles or AL. The original text in French is in the section "other libertarian press", so it is not the case that the text wasn't published. If you want to send us the translations into Russian, Spanish, English or any other language, please do and we will be happy in publishing there in other libertarian press.
Sincerely yours,

None of the French anarchist texts were placed on the site by WSM members so your barking up the wrong tree there. At this point Anarkismo.net involves groups from Ireland, Italy, Greece, USA, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Australia, Southern Africa as well as individuals from elsewhere so I guess one of the above is the guilty party.

I agree with their probable reasons though. Our editorial policy means that we favour texts from anarchist communist sources and in general only publish texts from other sources on the main newswire if they fill gaps in our coverage and are not hostile to anarchist communism. We will however publish other anarchist texts including hostile ones in 'other libertarian press' so if you work out how to submit articles (hint - click on 'Submit article') it is likely that the other translations and the French original will be published there. (Chacalon I don't think it is there at the moment)

Someone from the CNT-AIT has posted over 15 articles onto the newswire in the last few minutes. This isn't a very smart way of submitting material as each article of yours we publish pushes all your articles down the other libertarian press wire. You would have been better submitting a few a day over a couple of weeks.

There are also problems with the way you have submitted each article.

You can help us out with articles you post in future by making sure
1. You submit them with the Type "Other Libertarian press'
2. Do not put the title all in CAPITALS
3. The summary box should contain a summary of the article in the
language it was posted. Distribution details, links etc should be
placed at the end of the article - we rewrite unsuitable summaries.

Of course, these should not even be posted fully in this section: the "other libertarian press" section is "where you can publish short summaries and links to articles" and seeing as the CNT AIT have their own website, and the posts are contained there, I see no reason why we should make an exception.

I am responding to the proclamation by the editors of this site that my comments are intended to smear some as agents of the state. This was not my intention, rather I sought to question the goals of the creation of disharmony by those who in my oppinon where attacking all who did not hold to thier ideologically ridgid views. The threat of removal of posts reveals how truely anti-authoritarian this site is. If you cannot even function in cyberspace in a free and inclusive way, how are you to orginize society? Will you simply remove those who question your epistemic dogmatizm? It is ironic how those who use lenin to demonize movements act in ways that emulate the repressive actions of leninism.

You are welcome to make any point you wish to make in the debate, but using language that does not contradict our editorial guidelines.

"The threat of removal of posts reveals how truely anti-authoritarian this site is" I presume you are being ironic here. This site is run by a collective of delegated editors who share responsibility for the site collectively. When this site went "on air" last year, we published the editorial guidelines which we provided ourselves with. These guidelines are freely available on the site for all to consult. Allowing a free-for-all slanging match is neither useful nor desirable, it has nothing to do with being authoritarian or anti-authritarian.

One of the comments that I hid was the one that simply called your initial posts 'leninist' which would rather undermine your theory.

Stating or implying people are following a state agenda is one of the most dangerous things you can do. In many countries if taken seriously it can put the individuals life at risk. Even in countries where this is not the case it sows deep divisions and if believed can destroy peoples ability to work with others.

Also incidentally it is a method that is widely used by the 'secret state' to destroy organisations and activists. Google "bad jacketing" for countless examples from North America. In short it is a very, very bad idea and will not be tolerated on this site.

Funny how you chose to not remove Waynes comment in which he called me a leninist. You are cherrypicking comments that disagree with your ideology. This is called censorship and is close to oppression. You should think hard and fast before you get real loose with the delete button. My comments were never meant to cause strife, rather to inform and enhance the debate. Also, I never once said anyone was following a state agenda. I just have first hand experiance with state agents formenting internal debate inorder to destablize a movement. While I am also opposed to paranoid protractions that seek to scare all by claiming state invasion, it is interesting how there has been a large increase in the type of ideological "debates" that have sprung up all over the net lately.

I think reducing censorship to 'I can't post whatever I like on a particular bulletin board' just reduces the term to something meaningless. All the more so when we not only have an appeals process but also the ability for you to publically argue your case - which you are doing here. I'd reserve the term censorship for attempts to deny you all expression in a particular medium - otherwise you cheapen it.

Wayne does indeed call you a leninist but that is only a very short section of a post in which he makes longer and more substantive points We don't allow ourselves to edit comments only to decide to hide them or not and that decision is weighed by the abuse / content ratio. I don't know if you have looked at our commenting guidelines yet but they cover this

Trolling. Comments which consist entirely of abuse towards any group, individual, or article without attempting to situate this in the context of the particular article or debate arising out of that article. So for example, a comment which simply says: "the Popular Front of Judea are wankers" will be deleted, while a comment that says: "The fact that the PFJ have refused this offer of an alliance shows them to be hypocritical wankers in the light of what they have said before", might remain

I have read your commenting guidelines. I fail to see how I breached them? Can you enlighten me? Also, if you argue that waynes comment was only attacking in a small part, the same arguement would apply to my comment. Would it not? Your comment that I was practicing "bad jacketing" is also ironic, because it was the "bad jacketing" or what we used to call red baiting by the original post that I was responding to. Your Orwellian jedi tricker fails to confuse me. By labeling my comments offensive you have yourself committed the ultimate act of authoritarian censorship, added to by your cherrypicking and your attempts to claim I am a state agent (which you said would get people killed in some circles).

Brad,
I agree that Wayne's comment, "My Pre-"Post-Leftism"", would have been better without the word "Leninist" in it, but that does not invalidate the rest of the comment, which is quite clearly useful.
Note that we do not remove words or phrases from comments (THAT would be censorship).
Your accusation of us being selective is also wrong. Sean S.'s comments are clearly hostile to the article, yet his comments have not been removed as they are not abusive.

"Your arrogance is revealed when you seek to proclaim your superiourity to the "workers", as if you are not one of them. Dribble and elitist nonsense."

"Your over generalizations about leninism and other movements shows your intention to not debate, but to shmere and hid behind polemic nonsense. Have fun with your little ineffective club. Let us revolutionaries know when you get serious."

"I am labeled a leninist because I disagree with the ability of atomized individual responses (read false consciousness) to make any sort of progress towards radical social change. How anti-authoritarian of you."

"This whole article is an execise in pigeonwholing for the sake of discrediting and therefore taking control (authority) of a growing movement. "

With regard to your denial of accusing some commentators of being state agents, read your original comment:

"These petty squables are both counter productive and more than likely posed by agents of the state in order to forment disunity in revolutionary circles."

In a later comment you say:
"Again, I question your motives behind creating division within a growing movement?"

Finally you say:
"I am responding to the proclamation by the editors of this site that my comments are intended to smear some as agents of the state. This was not my intention."

Yes if you repost it without abuse and without unsubstantiated accusations it should be fine. It would also be a better (as in more likely to convince people) post.

The aim of our policy is not to spend a lot of time removing comments but to get people to engage in discussion at a more serious level than that which is typical of the net. We want challenging posts. I think if you compare the discussion on this site to other anarchist sites you'll see this works.

I admit that one of those lines, the "more than likely posed by agents.." should have been a bit less edgy. You must admit the whole tone starting with the original post was posited in an offensive tone. I also beleve that we should state it as we see it and not put up false pretenses. Most great thinkers stated in sometimes harsh tones their disagreement with comrades statements. Intense debates create strong movements.

OK I've just hidden you repost. Basically your not going to get away with implying the author is a state agent for wanting to discuss differences. Making the implication a little less direct is not going to fix that problem!

If on the other hand you had any evidence that this was the case you would be more then welcome to use the contact form to inform us of what this was. We both know this is not the case - you are simply using it to smear a discussion you do not like. This is not acceptable.

To help you along I've edited that post to remove the unacceptable material. The bit in bold is IMHO borderline unacceptable as it stands.

All who proclaim to believe in the tenents of the marxist tradition are not leninist simply because they disagree with the ability of atomized individual responses (read false consciousness) to make any sort of progress towards radical social change. How anti-authoritarian to claim to be more revolutionary and therefore claim to be the authority of the movement. This articles tone is ripe with pigeonwholing for the sake of discrediting in order to command control (authority) of a growing movement. These petty squables are both counter productive. I call on all to not partake in the labeling and exclusionary politics of these types. Instead look to unity with diversity as the guiding priciple of the the revolutionary movement. The true revolutionary marches hand in hand with all who seek a non authoritarian, non oppressive social system. Oh, and I am not a leninst or any ist.

So you've chosen the road of fascism and ideological isolationaryism over open debate and acceptance of postive criticism. Proving when push comes to shove you use authority to maintain your ridged exclusionary "movement". Have fun reafferming your beliefs amoungst yourselves. Your atomized individualistic ideology will further isolate you until you can no longer even get along with other "anarchists". As your numbers continue to decrease until one day you are alone in your home trying to blame everyone else for not being as anti-authoritarian as thou.

You can be in you movement where your allowed to call anyone who disagrees with your particular analysis a 'state agent' and scream 'fascism', 'censorship' or whatever if your told to either produce the facts or shut up. Feel free to set up your own site where such behaviour is encouraged.

We'll stay with the anarchist movement in which there should be no room for such destructive behaviour. Anyone who prefers this approach should probably stay on Anarkismo.net

I have said over and over that my goal was not to label anyone a state agent, mearly to say that the internal strife is counterproductive and aids the state. I also have no problem with those who disagree with my ideology. Just so long as they don't use tactics of pigeonwholing and red baiting to do it (essentially calling those opposed to them statist authoritarians, which I guess is all right with you). If they do I will call them on it. As for the claims of censoship and fascism, the evidence is quite clear. Unless you go back remove that too with your little tools of the ministry of truth.

On a separate topic, I am confused by Anarcho's position on Platformism. Put simply, why write for this avowedly Platformist site if, as stated in Anarcho's Reply to Bob Black on the Platform, you are not a Platformist?

(And what's the difference between a Platformist and a neo-Platformist? (Sounds like the start of a joke! Answers on a postcard please...))

I ask this not in any sectarian spirit (and as a fan, if you'll forgive the term, of Anarcho's stuff that I've read here), but in genuine puzzlement. I like Anarcho's thinking; I'm just slightly confused by this one aspect of it.

This section of the comment was originally posted to http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2400

We publish articles on the main newswire that are compatable with our editorial statement and our goals. There is no requirement in these that the article has to be written by a self described 'platformist'. In particular if a compatable article is well written and is covering an area (or region) where otherwise our coveage is weak we are quite likely to publish it. A lot of the material anarcho publishes falls within this so we are happy to publish it. We have also published material by other authors on a similar baisis on the main newswire - indeed we have even featured some of these articles.

We also of course publish material that falls outside of these conditions under 'other libertarian press' and even 'non-anarchist press' where it is not simply hostile to the site goals. But even if it were hostile if it was also well written we would probably publish it with a reply under 'debate'.

The query and answer belongs here as it is our editorial decision to publish the articles.

There is nothing very odd in writing/submitting articles for publications that are not exactly of your own line of thought. I've written stuff for Libertarian Labour Review, Black Flag, Freedom and even a Green Party publication over the years. It was up to the editors of those publications to make similar judgements as we make here - are the articles concerned sufficantly compatable with the goals and editorial statements of those publications to publish them.

Once again Andrew, I'm NOT questioning Anarkismo's editorial decision to publish Anarcho's work (or Anarcho's right to be on the site!! Jeez!), and nor am I even trying to address Anarkismo editorial group. Please don't be so defensive. You're not under attack.

Really I was just wanting Anarcho to clarify how he views Platformism/"neo-Platformism"/this site. Perhaps my question could just be passed to Anarcho directly. Maybe he could write a response (maybe he has fully explained it all elsewhere and a URL would do).

It's not the editorial decision but the authorial one (to utilise a Platformist site) that I am interested in. I realise that "There is nothing very odd" (up to a point) "in writing/submitting articles for publications that are not exactly of your own line of thought", I am just interested in the choice of Anarkismo over non-Platformist anarchist sites (though perhaps Anarcho uses them too; I don't know).

NB The title you gave to the beginning of this thread is entirely misleading ("Why is anarko on anarchism?"). This makes it sound as if the basis of Anarcho's anarchism is being questioned. It is not. Perhaps it should read "Why is Anarcho on Anarkismo?" (which, as I say, is addressed to Anarcho, and not Anarkismo).

Whilst I would love to see an Anarchist Revolution, the things that will prevent it during our lifetime are:
· The million and one different views as to what it means,
· The million and one different views as to how to get there,
· The constant infighting and debating as to whose idea is more correct,
· The over intellectualisation of the idea,
· The elitism of the idea that anyone who is not working class can not be a comrade and can not truly want an overthrow of Capitalism.

The reason that Capitalism is winning is because it is generally simple, unified and goes for the middle ground. Until you can make the average 9-5 accountant comfortable with the idea and turn up at your meetings, it will only ever remain that – an idea

1- " The million and one different views as to what (anarchist revolution) means"

After the press coverage of the WTO protests at Seattle in 1999 (has it been that long!?) "anarchism" got sex appeal. Everybody wanted to be an anarchist. No shit, I know someone (a fellow home schooler) with a blog titled Anarchy and the Knit Snitch.

But among us anarchist organizers, we know that the anarchist milieu (referring to the historical anarchist project that struggles for free socialism within the context of a classless society) is considerably more narrow than is commonly thought.

3- "The constant infighting and debating as to whose idea is more correct "

I agree that the infighting is excessive.

4- The over intellectualisation of the idea

You got something against thinking?

5- " The elitism of the idea that anyone who is not working class can not be a comrade and can not truly want an overthrow of Capitalism"

Though there is far from unanimity within our ranks, I am not alone in thinking that in order to be successful, portions of the middle class must be won over to our ideals. (The owning class, the capitalists, the corporate CEO's, etc., have a fundamental conflict of interest with workers. To speak of reconciling with them, is ludicrous.)

Finally, we don't seek to get the mass of people to *show up at our meetings*. We seek simply to popularize anarchist ideals, within the meeting places and communities where working people already congregate.

Frankly, Jack, I think the defeatist attitude that your comments typify, are a far greater obstacle to a revolutionary breakthrough, than any the barriers you cite.

I have nothing against thinking - in today’s world not enough people do enough of it - and I am not being defeatist.
I'm middle - professional class, embedded in the Capitalist system, decent salary, etc., yet have long since concluded that Capitalism is destructive, inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed. I would love nothing more than to see it replaced with some form of anarchist system, but along with some other adherents find it difficult to express or envisage exactly what that system would be, how it would work and how to get there.
In making my points, I was simply trying to express some of the problems and issues that are preventing the ideas from moving forward. Of course 'a million and one' is an exaggeration, but anyone can see that the sheer number of competing ideas and the infighting, etc., are things that will never appeal to or attract the average middle class worker whom you agree needs to be aware and won over before Capitalism can be seen as a failure by the majority or at least a large minority.

I'm going to respond, because Jack raises what I think are some important points. (But his e-mail address gives me cause for pause).

I too have difficulty envisaging exactly how an "anarchist system" would operate. I have only lived under the heel of capitalism; that's all I know from experience. Plus, there has never been a modern classless society. So, outside of the practices during the early Russian Revolution (before the triumph of Bolshevism) and in Spain in the 1930's, there is little by way of historical record to assist us.

So I suppose a certain leap of imagination is necessary. But even so, I am convinced that 1- competition and domination are the bedrocks of capitalism. And,
2- that a system based on sharing and equality is not only possible, but mandatory, if we are to escape nuclear holocaust or ecological catastrophe. To say nothing of building a society that we can be proud to take part in.

In short, we envision a society organized as a federation of community and workplace councils (the latter subordinate to the former, I think). The details of production and distribution would be managed directly by the members of the community through these councils, rather than by the rule of owners, bosses, or elected "representatives". When it could not be avoided, individuals would be delegated specific tasks that embody the will of the community. But never would anyone be elected, to "lead' as he saw fit. Persuasion would be the epitome of leadership. And aside from the decisions of these councils, the individual would be free to do as she saw fit, as long her actions didn't infringe on the liberty of others. Community militias would probably exist. Some form of community- not government form above, but a local, direct function- some form of community group would be responsible for reigning in psychopaths and the like. Much crime would disappear with the abolition of private property- not the abolition of personal effects, like combs and toothbrushes, but abolition of privately ownership of stores and factories, for example. No need to steal, because all goods belong to the community.

So that's a quick peek at my vision. Others could surely present a more engaging picture. News From Nowhere is a fictional imagining along these lines, and worth reading. Chris Carlsson's After the Deluge: A Novel of Post-Economic San Francisco was an attempt to do something of a similar nature (I was less taken with that one). Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed is worth a look.

Have you tried contacting any class struggle anarchists in your region? Speaking generally- which is always dangerous- I have found my comrades to be considerably less rancorous in person, than on the internet. In the US, there are anarchist communists in the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, Georgia and California. That I know of.

The author of the comment seems upset that the articles he posted onto the main newswire was not instantly approved. There were two good reasons for this

1. Most of our Anglo editors are located in Europe so often Anglo articles posted outside Euorpean work hours (as this one was) will have to wait 'overnight' until an editor sees them. Our friend could have checked to see if any other Anglo articles had been approved in that period before complaining and he might have realised that was the most likely explanation.

2. In any case this article was not posted to the correct section of the site (it should have been posted to non-anarchist press). It also contravenes the posting guideline again "Cut and pastes. Posts that are publicly available elsewhere on the internet, or in the mainstream media. We do realise, however, that there can sometimes by a strong case for articles published elsewhere to be brought to the attention of Anarkismo readers. In these cases, we ask contributors to write an original introduction to the article, highlighting its relevance to Anarkismo readers and include a link to the article. Users can also choose post a short article and a link in either the 'non anarchist press' or other libertarian press' link at the top of the newswire. Articles that consist of an original introduction and contain several links to articles containing background information may even be made into front-page features " This second issue isn't such a big deal as we are sloppy about enforcing this requirement but posting an article to the wrong section will always delay publication further as it means an editor has to find the time to do the work.

Anyway the work the author didn't bother to do for himself and now been done for him. Before I'd even seen this comment I'd reclassified the article to 'Non anarchist press' and reduced it to a summary and link which can now be found at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3717

I strongly suspect that all this is part of the periodic row about the Haiti union 'Batay Ouvriyé' that breaks out on Anarkismo.net. Far from trying to suppress such a debate we have tried to encourage it to be conducted in a constructive fashion. The article 'On the payroll? Debate on the accusations to Batay Ouvriyé' summarises the question and is followed by a lot of contributions from all sides in that debate. Our policy regarding cut and pastes has already been explained on that thread - in that context it should not be assumed that we will tidy up after contributors in the future - incorrectly submitted articles may simply not appear.

We would encourage readers to continue discussion on that thread but with not original posts, not cut and pastes from elsewhere.

A final point for other Anarkismo.net readers. A very small number of people bother to post article summaries to 'Other Libertarian Press' or 'Non anarchist press'. However both these categories not only turn up in the seach engine for the site but the most recent five are linked from every page (in the left column) and enteries are listed in google news. So if you spot something elsewhere that you want to bring to peoples attention we'd strongly encourage you to use those sections.

Please don't request the deletion of comments on the newswire, if you want to do this you the 'Contact Us' button which is at the top of every page. Our commenting guidelines don't allow "Comments on editorial policy. Users can appeal for or against deletions by contacting the editors using the 'Contact Us' link at the top of the front page. Editorial actions are debated on the editorial list. Commentary on Anarkismo editorial policy on the newswire will be removed"

Note that while we do say " Posts that contain explicitly racist, sexist or homophobic views will be removed. We don't necessarly oppose free speech for people with hateful views, we're just not going to provide them with a platform for distributing those views." They need to be explicitly racist. The comment referred to (on the article linked below) may be objectively racist but this is a different situation that may be best sorted by showing how this is so on the article itself. We recently decided to do this with a similar comment 'Isreal is so small, yet it is trying to conquer? ' on the article at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3651

Why was my comment taken away? Is it too provocative to let you know that you dont know what you are talking about? That insurrectionalist anarchism isnt, contrary to what the article and several posters claim, about 5 people picking up guns and trying to storm the white house "in the name of the people"?

You dont have to agree with insurrectionalist theory, there are clearly big diffrences between insurrectionalism and neoplattformism. But is it really too much to ask that you atleast know and understand what the fuck you are criticzising?

Point 14 of our commenting guidelines reads "Comments that consist of witty or otherwise one liners will be removed. If you have an argument to make develop it into at least a paragraph."http://www.anarkismo.net/docs.php?id=29

The comment that was removed was such a 'one liner' reading "You are getting confused by the name "insurrectionist".

Please take the time to read the commenting guidelines, they are written with a few to maintaining a high standard of discussion on Anarkismo.net

For other readers this is in relation to the article at the link below

Big deal, the post-left critique has been put forward by Americans and you should deal with that. This is supposed to be a critique of post-left anarchy and Randy was supposed to of used some of their writings in developing his article, but obviously you'd rather avoid that too because postings on a global site must be obtuse. This is bad form and no excuse for a poor critique.

What volumes does it speak Joe, huh buddy? The left is huge, whoop whoop, so is capitalism. Does this validate their ideas? No, your argument is lacking in substance as well.

The two comments above were moved from the article 'Postmodernism in Literature and Politics: Experimental Fiction and Post-Left Anarchy' http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4800 because they contravened Anarkismo.nets commmenting guidelines

Wombat if you want to discuss our editorial guidelines or our implementation of them please use this thread

This article is libelous and is a diliberate distortion because the author doesn't even know what post-left critique is. The webmasters have published and promoted this article uncritically and are supporting a one sided moderation and thus are supporting this libelous article. I demand it be removed.

I'm waiting for your explanation heir moderator. I may be demanding a boycott on all anarkismo related articles on all sites I frequent should this sour more than it has already. You are supporting a one sided moderation.

pat murtagh: one of the vices of "the left" that post leftism has preserved and even exaggerated !!!!(NO FUCKING SHIT) is the desire to seem all the much smarter than you really are...Somebody who is really and totally ignorant and perhaps the word is "deliberately ignorant" because they confine themselves within a tiny circle of mutual admiration that will NEVER give rise to attack such as THIS ONE.Someone who will say anything such for ther sake of talking,unaware of how this plays out outside of "the cult". Welcome to the real world Bubba !!!...the claim of such purveyors of philosophical babble to Stirner's mantle of "egoist". If there is ONE thing that people can learn from that precursor of existentialism called Stirner it is that you don't take your abstractions (ghosts/spooks) for reality. The "post-leftists" whole raison d'etre is to construct more convoluted spooks and abstractions, just as primitivists do in a more restricted view.

---

The above are all lies.

Randy: the liberation of individual desire, rather than social revolution

---

This is suggesting that anarchists that accept post-left critique are not for social revolution...this is a lie.

The connections Randy's articles make are based on lies. I demand its removal.

Wombat you seem to be mixing up different interpretation of the facts with whether or not the facts or true. As for libelous this is a very weird expression to use - could you explain why you have chosen to do so?

In general we moderate this site very little but where posters go outside the Commenting Guidelines we will remove or move comments in order to prevent the degeneration of discussion. The purpose of this thread is to make this process transparent both in terms of the Guidelines themselves and also by providing samples of the sort of stuff that is moved.

Poster can choose to post here or choose not to, if they do post here then they choose to do so under the commenting guidelines.

Wombat,
The liberation of ind. desire was featured prominently in infoshop.org's summary of post left thought, as I documented in my footmotes. I know some other post lefties identify as individualist. Wolverine (who is sympathetic to post left thought) agrees.
So, as far as I know, no one but you contends otherwise- and, as I have noted earlier (and with no personal offense intended), you seem a bit confused. (See my comments regarding whether or not you accept postmodern ideas, disavowing them one minute, and arguing for their core ideas the next.)
If I am mistaken, I will gladly retract this contention regarding post left and individualism. But at this point, I don't think I am.
Hope this clears things up, and takes them off a personal plane,
Randy

Wolverine probably thinks you mean egoist, when I know you are comparing the position of egoist to Ben Tucker, which are disconnected versions of thought. In America, individualism is first associated with a cooperative economic theory that started around the same time that mutualism did but never embraced social revolution. I don't hate this tendency, but I definately don't identify with it and I don't accept any theory that does. The only authors that have attempted to bring individualism or mutualism into a post-left critique have been rejected because anarchists are anti-capitalists as well as anti-statists.

Your "confusion" not mine is the problem. Stop making statements about me that are false or are a distortion of my position. Quote me and respond if you have to, but don't give me this "Wombat thinks" when I damn well don't think such things. You need proof for me to respond further. I think you are a diliberate liar because you haven't appologized for your article and its very false basis. I again demand this poorly researched article be removed for libel.

And what about the liberation of desire? Where does it say that anarchists can't be for the liberation of desire and the negation of all power structures? This is another diliberately false line of thinking. This is why Randy's article should be removed, he didn't research anything he just went off of a few statements from an intro to a website...what a source, that is just horrible. A "Global" website such as this should have more responsibility than to publish libelous garbage like this.

Normally I give a person the benefit of doubt that they aren't diliberate in their distortions, but Randy and others won't stop throwing logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I can no longer believe this to be ignorance, but instead, they are diliberate lies. The burden of proof is in your court, not mine, I'm not making strawmen up. The least Randy could do is ask me questions and try to figure my position out before he draws conclusions, those conclusions should be based on fact and not some fantasy land where "ism" has to be attached to every other word.

I'll let this drop if I'm not mentioned anymore in this thread as being connected to whatever you are critiquing, because it sure isn't any ideas I am for. Randy could do more research, in fact he must if he wants to honestly critique the post-left critique.

I don't want your responses, I'm done with you. I want your article removed for libel, but am willing to concede on this point if I am no longer referred to in this thread, so please don't respond to me.

My God, there are now two or three marbles missing from this playground. Somebody who lost most of their marbles a long time ago has thrown a tantrum and picked up their marbles and gone home. I guess that kicking others is OK but retaliatory kicks don't fit in somebody's view of how their noble self should be treated. Remember this temper tantrum VERY carefully boys and girls. If this sucker could get away with it he'd do a LOT more to you than throw a childish fit because he is ignorant enough not to expect opposition. It's called 'The Stalin in the Soul'.
Well...to losers at the game of marbles...if you think these people here are bad and evil wait until you try and horseshit the vast majority of average people about your "nihilist" views. Perhaps then and ONLY then you'd meet reality. Howzabout you grow up like the real nihilists ,that you have the fantasy of belonging to, did and "go to the people". It took them down a peg or 300, and that is probably what you need more than anything else. What you have met here is NOTHING compared to what you would meet out in the real world.

why publish articles from a corporatist-fascist organization?
For those who might not know the history of the Larouche organization and its shabby fall from authoritarian Marxism to electoral fascism, seehttp://www.publiceye.org/larouche/

Anarkismo - this was posted under an article and a comment, as the comment we posted (below) shows we were not sure which it applied to. On investigation it turned out to be about the comment rather than the article so that comment was hidden. If pointing out such problems please be as specific as possible as the editors on duty may not be familar with local organisations or their front groups

None of our active editors are USA based so Larouche would only be vaguly known. I've some idea of what they/he is could you detail the connection your suggesting above and whether it is in relation to the article or the comment so we can act if there is a connection.

I'm a little surprised at Anarkismo for reproducing Kevin Keatings ultra-left holy war against this project. Giving space to this political gadfly, famous for nothing more than attacking everyone around him for little or no reason, is irresponsable.

Though I refused to join the anarkismo project because it started with opened commenting, I never dreamed that I will encounter in it texts of the red fascist enemy.

No matter if the authoritarian corespondent give a milder version by preferring "...party/organisation strong in the body, not in the centre ... the final decision maker should be the body...." not rulled by the central committee. It is still the old national liberation commies - the enemies of libertarian communism.

First of all, there's no reason to call the interviewed person "fascist" or "enemy". That is not only slander, but harmful sectarianism.
In anarkismo, we often publish interviews of people with different ideas to ours. We believe there's nothing wrong in exchanging ideas and that the worst is for anarchists to remain ignorant about other people's ideas and positions and to close ranks to talk only among those who are converted. That's religion, not politics.

If there's any serious disagreement with the ideas expressed in the article we welcome proper and constructive debate -not insults.

In the reply to my comment we got:
on the interview --- by Anarkismo Editorial Group - Anarkismo Monday, Sep 17 2007, 9:10pm
>
> First of all, there's no reason to call the interviewed
> person "fascist" or "enemy".
>
Though the person interviewed - the spokesman of the Mesopotamian Socialist Party pay lip service to party intra democracy he is not of any known antiauthoritarian trend.

He is Leninst: ( "Firstly, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism maintains its relevance") and he affiliate with the regional communists - meaning he is part of the authoritarians of the left.

I am not the only anarchist who regard the authoritarians of the left as enemy and red fascists. I wonder if you object to the description of the regimes of state capitalism of the countries ruled by the communist parties as red fascism. Their terror against the anarchists and any other left opposition entitle them the label of "Red Fascists".
>
> That is not only slander, but harmful sectarianism.
>
As long as the broad masses of wage slaves will not regard our kind of revolution as diametrically opposit to that of the Bolshevics, our contribution to their enlightment will be limited.

One of our main missions - if not the main one is to stress again and again the fact that the anticapitalist system we propose is entirely different from these of the authoritarians of the left.
>
> In anarkismo, we often publish interviews of people
> with different ideas to ours.
>
I wonder if you regard the interviews with enemies
a contribution to the antiauthoritarian anticapitalist opinions.

As 12 years editor of a-infos-en@ainfos.ca I heard lot of objections to refusing giving space to "interesting" items. I think that even the infoshop.org wide spectrum will refuse such friendly interview with enemy of the working class and our movement.
>
> We believe there's
> nothing wrong in exchanging ideas
>
I wonder if in this line of opinion you will give space on anarkismo to the opinions of the Nazi, Zionists, Fascists.

The contents of the posts and opinions printed in anarkismo color it in a certain way - no matter if it is "just satisfying curiosity".
>
> and that the
> worst is for anarchists to remain ignorant about other
> people's ideas and positions and to close ranks to
> talk only among those who are converted.
> That's religion, not politics.
>
I do not preach to not read the texts of the authoritarian enemy - I just claim that the hospitality given to them in our space is a bad strategy.

Sometimes a polemical texts can be an important contribution. A text of one of our movement criticizing
the Mesopotamian Socialist Party could be very informative and not rising the suspicion of sympathy towards them.
>
Befriending the enemy is not "politics" it is suicidal.
>
> If there's any serious disagreement with the ideas
> expressed in the article we welcome proper and
> constructive debate - not insults.
>
It reminds me the critics of the labeling of the Zionists as NaZionists. I wonder if the objectors to the label "red fascists" can show in what the ex-communist states are so different from Italy of Moseliny fascism and other fascist states.

I know of lot of radical activists who even label themselves as anarchists, but are so short sighted that they only taking into consideration the present.

We often have to be in the same projects the authoritarians of the left red fascists take part in (or even organize) However, it is entirely different from befriending them willingly on our own initiative.

i share your critcisms about the interview. i dont want to speak for him, but jose probably saw it as a chance to think about the kurdish national question from a libertarian point of view even if the beginning point will be "old national liberation commies" as you said. if the interview was better, i would be more supportive of it. the guy wrote many books about the kurdish question and the interview is superficial compared to them.

so i think it is not worth publishing, but you are making a more general claim: on anarkismo there should be no word of authoritarians of any type and kind (at least as an article). we are cooperating with various types of leninists and kurdish nationalists in turkey and it is not always, but sometimes very valuable. i should also say that we also learn from them during these cooperations and we have never softened our general claim that every authoritarian/statist tactic will end up with recreating the authoritarian/statist institutions we are opposing today. so they may become a fascism with a different color, but this is not a reason for not working with, listening to or learning from them. they are certainly different from the fascists serving the dominant classes (at for the middle term).

It is a strange way "to think about the kurdish national question from a libertarian point of view" by bringing as stand alone the text of authoritarian of the left.

If there was the will to bring our opinion on that subject - and not just "interesting text" the contributor could do as it is usual step, bring the enemy text and give criticism to each line within it.

Any way, I would be offended if a comrade who is not well informed in the political condition in my region will bring such interview with authoritarians of our region.

> but you are making a more general claim: on
> anarkismo there should be no word of authoritarians
> of any type and kind (at least as an article).

Yes, there is no place to their texts without thorough criticism like the one I distributed on the Trotskist who comlimented the Israeli anarchists against the wall....
>
> we are cooperating with various types of leninists
> and kurdish nationalists in turkey and it is not always,
> but sometimes very valuable.
>
Anarchists cannot dictate to others not to cooperate with authoritarians - not even if the others are anarchists. However my take is that such cooperation should be limited to wide spectrum activities we join or even we initiate, but in in the position to restrict participants.

In Israel-Palestine we cooperate with local comities of Palestinian nationalists in the struggle against the occupation whose members are of wide specrum.

When the joint actions are drawing Israeli and palestinians of various political positions and inclinations we are not in the position to boycott.

However, the giving them space in our projects will lead people to think that we are not so different from them.
>
> But, > i should also say that
> we also learn from them during these cooperations
>
I wonder what an anarchist can learn from authoritarian party leader...
>
> so they may become a fascism with a different color,
> but this is not a reason for not working with,
>
When you are with a bad company - people regard you as similar....

You may do it when you are forced and people see it is not your choice.
>
> listening to or learning from them.
>
I learned the introduction of political economy from Capital I. of Marx.... but I wonder what an anarchist communist can learn from national liberation
>
> they are certainly different from the fascists serving
> the dominant classes (at for the middle term).
>
They are certainly different from the brown fascists who keep the capitalist state. However, their suppression of the working class and the activists of the left was as vicious as that of the fascists - though the regimes of Castro and Mao were less murderous than that of Stalin.

We have brought a number of interviews to the newswire in the past with the sole purpose of getting people familiar with other stuff that may be of interest, while at the same time, giving the chance to have that way some form of debate if needed. (The only criterium to post it to the main newswire is that an editor did the interview).

Having the possibility of posting comments, it would be great if Shalif, just like Ender or I did, would discuss by commenting the contents of the interview itself instead of barking with foam in mouth about "red fascism". I'm sure he will have loads to say about it, given the fact that we were bold enough to publish an interview with "authoritarians of HIS region" without his kind permission.

To care more about "who said what" than "what has actually been said", is the typical pathological sectarianism that reduces a lot of the anarchist discussion to a mere exchange of insults, at best, and to a sad joke at worst. Discussion should be given with arguments, not with insults. with words instead of foam.

José Antonio Gutiérrez write that the the anarkismo.net policy for including texts of interview format is "The only criterion to post it to the main newswire is that an editor did the interview". It seems anarkismo editorial policy do not take into consideration that the web site is regarded by readers as a kind of ID of anarchist communist spectrum.

It seems José Antonio Gutiérrez do not accept the option of other anarchist communists holding different opinion than his and revert to insulting: "instead of barking with foam in mouth about "red fascism"".... instead of facing the challenge and pointing to the qualitative difference between the terror of the fascists and the terror of state capitalist states ruled by the "authoritarians of the left" pseudo communist parties.

It seems José Antonio Gutiérrez do not share with me the aversion of authoritarians vanguardists who dream of replacing the capitalist rulers....

It seems José Antonio Gutiérrez do not have the same aversion I have from people who endorse the terror, torture, repression and exploitation of the working people after the collapse of capitalism.

José Antonio Gutiérrez do not share with me the understanding that hosting authoritarians of the left present us as potential accomplices to these, like the anarchists who did it in previous revolutions and paid for it with their freedom and life.

It seems that the majority of the editorial group of anarkismo.net do not agree with my opinion about the damage they do to the anarchism when they host in the web site text of would be red fascists.

It seems I mistakenly regarded anarkismo.net as the materializing of my idea of international anarchist communist space.
Ilan

P.S.
Excerpt from the editing policy of the ainfos.ca project:
1) We welcome views which do not contradict a basic anarchist position. We do not carry material which promotes discrimination and suppression of people (ie. racists - Nazis, Zionists, etc. - or sexists - male chauvinists, patriarchal or homophobic material). We do not carry material which advocates electoral politics not posts which advocate voting for state agencies or apparatus or building parties.
We do not distribute posts which support authoritarian "revolutionary" politics or any text that serves the propaganda of vanguardists, leninists or any proponents of state capitalism. Neither do we distribute posts which express support for people jailed because they promoted authoritarian "revolutionary" politics, vanguardism, leninism or any other form of state capitalism. We may choose to distribute posts with such content when we believe that the circulation of such material will damage the cause of those who produced it. ...."

-The fact that it is an interview and that is introduced as someone with different politics, sorts out the problem of anyone confusing "who is who".

- What I don't accept is not other "anarchists holding different opinions" so no need to play the victim here. What I will never accept, although, is inability to discuss with arguments and resort to insults such as "red fascists" and so on. This actually does little to improve our understanding of politics, does little to challenge other political strands and this way of "arguing" makes anarchists look poor in ideas but quite rich in hormones.

-I do not have to "face that challenge". It is up to you to prove your case not discussing with me, but discussing with the ideas shown in the interview.

-I do not think "aversion" as an irrational reaction, helps in any way to understand the basic distinction between the authoritarian and the libertarian left. "Aversion" leads to sectarianism, something you may indulge in a country like Israel, where the authoritarian left is quite small anyway, but not where you have a sizeable left which is the main pole of attraction to people interested not in "murdering and torturing" but actually in changing society. I think your "commie-boggie-man" is McCarthist and does not helps us to discuss with those thousands of honest people that do believe in the project. that said, it is plain and simple slander to state that the interviewed comrade endorse exploitation, torture and repression as a project

(actually, I think that in spite of political intentions, the State will always behave in such a way, no matter what. But this is a point that has to be stressed in terms of means and ends, tactics and strategy, instead of exorcising fears of the "evil commies" and the "leninist boggey man").

-I do not think there's any danger of being confused as long as you can discuss them. This, Shalif this far as proved unable to do. So far, no comments on the interview (and please, comments on the content on the article, not on your own straw man!)

-If your idea of an international anarchist communist space is that of a sect closed among its ranks, where discussion is replaced by insults, unable to challenge wrong ideas, sectarian to the point of ignoring that there's many people which we have at times to critically cooperate with while at the same time we have to actively engage in debate with them in order to influence as much as possible the broader left with libertarian arguments, then yes, I think you got it wrong. If your idea is to engage in debate, research and come up with arguments that are useful to strengthen our own alternative instead of comforming in yelling insults at others, then this is the right place.

Let's hope that Gutierrez and others from anarkismo.net agree with me that Leninism is not just another trend in Marxist theory; it is clear nowadays that this trend is responsible for the most severe defeats that revolution experienced during all 20th century!

"-I do not think there's any danger of being confused as long as you can discuss them. This, Shalif this far as proved unable to do. So far, no comments on the interview (and please, comments on the content on the article, not on your own straw man!)"

Pepe, one of the problems with this interview is that there is no attempt at discussion: it is simply a presentation of the Kurdish situation from a Leninist's point of view. I can read about that from any number of red websites or publications. I (and I'm sure many others) do not visit Anarkismo.net to read what the authoritarian left has to say.

I *would* be interested in reading an anarchist critique of a red fascist point of view, or in some form of debate... but the article in question is neither of these.

On your bracketed comment above, this thread is not for discussing the article itself, so Ilan's comments are not out of place here.

"-If your idea of an international anarchist communist space is that of a sect closed among its ranks, where discussion is replaced by insults, unable to challenge wrong ideas, sectarian to the point of ignoring that there's many people which we have at times to critically cooperate with while at the same time we have to actively engage in debate with them in order to influence as much as possible the broader left with libertarian arguments, then yes, I think you got it wrong. If your idea is to engage in debate, research and come up with arguments that are useful to strengthen our own alternative instead of comforming in yelling insults at others, then this is the right place."

This is all very well, but the article in question, I say it again, does not help your argument here.

The whole article is out of place. It is not particularly useful and in my opinion should not have been published in the main wire.

> -The fact that it is an interview and that is introduced
> as someone with different politics, sorts out the
> problem of anyone confusing "who is who".
>
The fact that Gutiérrez find it worth while to publicize an interview with the enemy of libertarian communism show his true color.
>
> - What I don't accept is not other "anarchists holding
> different opinions" so no need to play the victim here.
>

I am not that tolerant... I will not treat as comrade any one who will befriend a Nazi, or a NaZionist settler colonialist, or even just a simple fascist, or any one who regard apologetics for the Leninist "red terror".
>
> What I will never accept, although, is inability to
> discuss with arguments and resort to insults such as
> "red fascists" and so on.
>
It seems Gutirez do not regard the red terror of the Leninists and other authoritarians of the left as despicable as me the Cuban anarchists, the Bolshevists and all the other anarchists victims of theirs.
>
> This actually does little to improve our understanding
> of politics, does little to challenge other political
> strands and this way of "arguing" makes anarchists
> look poor in ideas but quite rich in hormones.
>
To be worthy of the label anarchist communist one is supposed to already understand the ideology and dynamics of authoritarians of the left.

If he do not despise them - he is joining them.

I read Marks and Lenin and more. I weeped too when Stalin died as I was ignorant at the time.

If Gutierrez do not see the similarity between the national socialists of Germany, Italy and Israel - he will probably will never understand the phenomena of the authoritarian left.
>
> -I do not have to "face that challenge". It is up to you
> to prove your case not discussing with me, but
> discussing with the ideas shown in the interview.
>
No one intend to force Gutierrez to face the challenge... it is just pity he refuse to face the facts of the red terror of the authoritarians of the left.
>
> -I do not think "aversion" as an irrational reaction,
> helps in any way to understand the basic distinction
> between the authoritarian and the libertarian left.
> "Aversion" leads to sectarianism,
>
If you do not feel strong aversion to the Pinochet, the murderous dictatorial of Argentine and the similar red terror any wisdom you gain will stink.
>
> something you may
> indulge in a country like Israel, where the
> authoritarian left is quite small anyway,
>
The national authoritarian left was very strong in Israel till not long ago. Till 1977 they even ruled the country.
>
They just passed the dissolving process the USSR and East Europe passed and China is passing now.

But Gutierrez hold that "if you cannot defeat them - join them.
>
> but not where
> you have a sizable left which is the main pole of
> attraction to people interested not in "murdering and
> torturing" but actually in changing society.
>
Before taking power, most if not all the authoritarians of the left were not different.

If you do not understand what is the dynamic of their ideology that transform them to murderous rulers you do not understand any thing about human psychology.
>
> I think your "commie-boggie-man" is McCarthist and
> does not helps us to discuss with those thousands of
> honest people that do believe in the project. that
> said, it is plain and simple slander to state that the
> interviewed comrade endorse exploitation, torture
> and repression as a project
>
It is plain and simple slander to state that the members of the communist parties endorse exploitation, torture, murder and repression, while they were fighting to bring the revolution. Their turning into such is an inbuilt mechanism of the authoritarian left.

If Gutierrez cannot see the seeds in them now and refuse to see the embedded gradients - he cannot contribute to the efforts to diminish their influence on the working people.
>
> (actually, I think that in spite of political intentions,
> the State will always behave in such a way, no matter
> what. But this is a point that has to be stressed in
> terms of means and ends, tactics and strategy,
> instead of exorcising fears of the "evil commies" and
> the "leninist boggey man").
>
It is really mazing how Gutierrez both admit that I am correct in pointing the future but refuse to see it as part of the making of the present authoritarians of the left...
>
> -I do not think there's any danger of being confused
> as long as you can discuss them.
>
The authoritarian of the left activist seems to the common worker as not so different from us.

You cannot convince them we are entirely different If you treat them at present with out taking into consideration the future.
>
> This, Shalif this far as proved unable to do. So far, no
> comments on the interview (and please, comments
> on the content on the article, not on your own straw
> man!)
>
The common people hold the opinion of: "Tel me who are your friends and I will tell you who are you".

To convince people that our revolution and our model of future society is entirely different from that of the authoritarians of the left we cannot cooperate with them willingly or treat them as partners even is short term gains may suffer.
>
> -If your idea of an international anarchist communist
> space is that of a sect closed among its ranks, where
> discussion is replaced by insults,
>
When I have foam while barking... I am among many other anarchists that regard the authoritarians of the left as enemies and the short sighted anarchist that want to socialize with them as collaborators with the enemy.
>
> unable to challenge wrong ideas, sectarian to the
> point of ignoring that there's many people which we
> have at times to critically cooperate with while at the
>
It seems Gutierrez use any mean possible to protect his position that treating the authoritarians of the left is contra productive.

He refuse to answer the points I brought forward and mix things to serve his rhetorics.

There is qualitative difference between marching with our specific block in a demo the authoritarians organized or joined, and the treating them as comrades.
>
> same time we have to actively engage in debate with
> them in order to influence as much as possible the
> broader left with libertarian arguments, then yes, I
> think you got it wrong.
>
There is a big difference between debate in public where you expose them as enemies of libertarian communism and the bringing their texts in our space.
>
> If your idea is to engage in debate, research and
> come up with arguments that are useful to
> strengthen our own alternative instead of conforming
> in yelling insults at others, then this is the right place.
>
You cannot argue about colors with color blind.
There is no use in arguing with gamblers who find it profiting to be friendly with authoritarians in the short range while they admit that in the long run they will murder us if they can.

It is also hard to discuss any thing with people who do not respect the wisdom of common people who are afraid that any anticapitalist revolution will lead to the same "dictatorial of the proletariat" state as that of the leninists.

jose and ilan, please stop insulting each other. this only harms anarkismo. jose, you may regard ilan's use of "red fascism" against leninists as an insult, but you are only making it worse rather than intelligible by insulting ilan. i hope both of you stop continuing the debate at this low level.

neither me nor jose thinks that leninists are benevolent people who are suffering from the disinformation campaign of us imperialism. the issue is that whether we like it or not we share sometimes the same enemies and conditions with some leninists or some nationalists. refusing their analyses or solutions without listening to them is not an efficient way to develop libertarian communism.

as far as i can see ilan's main arguments against my position is that 1. we cannot learn anything from authoritarians (except marx?); 2. anarkismo.net is a showpiece of anarchist communist international cooperation and therefore it should be clean from leninism.

in the first argument ilan already made an exception i.e. marx. and probably we can add many more exceptions maybe including lenin's or bukharin's contributions to the debates on imperialism. çiftyürek's last three books about the kurdish question are likewise instructive for me (one analyzing the kurdish history and contributing to the debate whether kurdistan is a colony or not; one analyzing the conditions and transformation of the kurdish working class after 1980; one about the kurdish question in the context of international relations and the occupation of iraq). so i think that there are something to learn from an authoritarian party leader.

i largely share your second argument although i think that preventing articles, comments etc from leninists is not a good way of dealing with this concern.

by the way i share nestor's criticism that due to its quality the text is not able to initiate a debate.

-Nestor, you say "It is one thing to engage with the authoritarian left in a debate. It is quite another to give them free reign in an interview.". How can you honestly engage in any sort of debate if you don't give the counterpart free reign? That's actually allowed by an interview, and debate should happen, as it has to a limited extent, in the comments.

What's worrying is that most of discussion happens at the level of hysteria about publishing or not, at the level of editorial policy, instead of counter-arguing some of the ideas actually contained in the interview (I never said that Shalif's comments were out of place in this thread -what I say is that I'd rather see the other happening).

It is true that the interview is only that, but the comments below should allow some level of discussion and that's actually what some people has opted to do.

-Manuel, you say "Let's hope that Gutierrez and others from anarkismo.net agree with me that Leninism is not just another trend in Marxist theory; it is clear nowadays that this trend is responsible for the most severe defeats that revolution experienced during all 20th century!" That's actually what I say in my own comment. I call it literally "a huge catastrophe for the revolutionary movement", though by no means I would believe that is the sole responsible for the tragedy of the XXth Century. So there's no need to "hope"when I have actually put forward that argument.

-Shalif, yes I love Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Bush, Duvalier, Sharon and Charles Manson too. I think it is ok to join them and I invite you to do so. That's all I've been subliminally saying again and again and you really are so sharp that you discovered me. (in case you did not realize, I was just joking -it is pointless to discuss with you, as all I get back is your neverending paranoid rant)

-One thing I'll mention to Shalif though: Pinochet was not Argentina's dictator; it was Chile's. Despicable as he was -remember I'm Chilean and I grew under his shade- aversion does not explain the deeply rooted sociological factors that lead him to power. In fact, the "Concertación" -current coalition in government, emerging from the "democratic" opposition- have been playing the cards of the "emotional" rejection of Pinochet as a figure to prevent an understanding of his legacy -a system they are, in the end, quite happy to administer.

-Ender, I largely agree with you, particularly at the point of the importance of discussion with other tendencies. But I would add that discussion needs to be rational and not emotional -this you can never stress too much.

To illustrate how useless is to talk of red fascism I'll refer only to a practical issue: many people I know who were former leninists, ended up in anarchism. In fact, Shalif himself used to be a leninist. No fascist or nazi, as far as I'm aware, has ever ended up in anarchism. doesn't this say quite a lot?

There's a number of people which are leninist because they do not know anarchism, but were fundamentally attracted to it because it talks of socialism, equality, freedom, the new man and so on (as Nestor mentions, "State & Revolution" can be a deceivingly attractive book). Nothing of that can be achieved through leninism as a programme and we know that for factual experience in history. The label of "red fascist" is doing nothing to engage in that debate, does nothing to attract that people to anarchism and further alieantes people that could potentially be on our side.

For those reasons I don't think it is only wrong as it does not explain much, but it is harmful too.

José Antonio,
You quote me, to say...
«That's actually what I say in my own comment. I call it literally "a huge catastrophe for the revolutionary movement", though by no means I would believe that is the sole responsible for the tragedy of the XXth Century. So there's no need to "hope"when I have actually put forward that argument.»

So, I feel the most puzzled when people from anarkismo.net give room and credit to Leninists.
Leninist leaders and intellectuals are not the same as simple soldiers from the cp armies.
They are generals, commanders. They are sure conscious of many flaws in Leninist theory, and even more on it's tragedy, in historical terms.
So, I can give some attention and have a discussion with some people who are Leninist cause they never met anything else, as you say.
Allthought it is less and less frequent, nowadays, thanks to the revival of class struggle anarchism...

But I don't give any publicity to CP leaders, I don't offer them any tribune, because they are not comrades, they are enemies.
It is not to be sectarian: it is to make the divide betwen freinds and non-friends.
You may be sure that they, Leninists, will never interview our people, or let us explain our views in their press or sites.
So, they also know we are not allies, they know we are their enemies.
Strange, that some anarchists persist in mixing up those things.

So, I «hope» you understand that some important people inside Leninist parties neither are the kind of people we should promote, nor let them speak without sharp criticism

It seems gutires try to ridicule instead of honest polemics. (And I did not say he is red fascist"). If he is insulted when I call the authoritarians of the left "red fascists", better he check in himself how come he is so emphatic with them.
The following give 3 samples of terror - not a description of one Pinochet. The meaning of coma "," is separation, not like the "-" which means elaboration of the previous....

"If you do not feel strong aversion to the Pinochet, the murderous dictatorial of Argentine and the similar red terror any wisdom you gain will stink".
---------
I think that befriending the various "authoritarians of the left" is just contribution for the next failure of the revolution.

You can learn from any one - including from fascists, but you do not have to give them credit.

You can debate the would be red fascists in anarchist space, but if it is not in the format of attacking them - it is just serving them and self defeating.

Taking example from such enemy when lately they court the anarchists and even giving them space, is wrong. I doubt the mental integrity of anarchist who agree to use the journals of the authoritarian left even if to criticize them.

The main difference between people who are soft on the authoritarians of the left, and people like me is that they do not know the deep psychological processes underlaying the struggle on the sympathy of the common working class person to our kind of revolution.

After the bank rot of the state capitalist systems of the authoritarians of the left, you cannot be too careful when you are in danger of being regarded by the people as similar to the authoritarians.

And it seems gutirez do not know enough people. Even in Israel, one can find people who were extreme rightists and gradually shifted to the left.

There was a policeman who reverted to trotskism.
There was an undercover informer that turned devoted trotskist and contributed all what he received to the group he used to monitor. There even an army recruit to top elite diving unit who became a trotskist.

There were top level Nazis who saved Jews in world war II.

Being Fascist is not an incurables disease. But of course Red Fascists are easier to convert to libertarian communism than regular fascists. However, as long as they are with that kind of ideology, they will revert to the same terror, torture, murder, and suppress any opposition.

And of course common people do mistakes as social science research show that half of the people in every political party belong to the "wrong" one as their opinions are more similar to these of other parties.

As one who "converted" from the "authoritarian of the left Marxism" and its derivatives, I think I am in more knowledge on how to help others to do that....

Hi there! I have some questions and comments about the editorial statement.

1. What is meant by "[religious] sectarianism"? It is stated that this is something which we should struggle against. I agree that aspects of religions can be oppressive and even violate human rights. This needs to be resisted. But beyond that, I believe we should have religious tolerance (just intolerance for the oppressive aspects of religions). I don't want to see the banning of religions as was/is done in some so-called "communist" societies. I think the editorial statement should be clearer on what is meant by religious sectarianism, to avoid misinterpretations.

2a. I read "Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists". Part of tactical unity is the use of violence. I'm wondering what exactly is meant by this. The use of violence can mean anything from self-defense (shooting back only when the cops or army have shot at you first) to unprovoked murder of civilians. There are many forms of political violence which I think are not only ethically unjustified but also tactically useless. If someone goes and shoots up a mall today and says it's for the revolution, that does not further our goals in any way; in fact it harms them. This is an extreme example, but I have heard of some anarchists (and communists) who have engaged in much less severe and much less unethical acts of violence, which were nonetheless equally useless on a tactical level, and likely even counter-productive (e.g. throwing rocks at cops in a protest when the cops had not innitiated any violence). I find it problematic and troublesome to simply state that "violence" is a tactic which we must support, without any elaboration on what contexts violence is appropriate in.

2b. Just my two cents here, but I personally think that we should have solidarity with anarcho-communist comrades who do not agree with the use of violence, if they are on point with the platform in every other way. I know of some solid anarcho-communists who are anti-violence, and I think the movement is weakened if we exclude them from our struggle.

3. In regards to this statement: "Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule." I'm wondering, how exactly is working class being defined? Specifically, I am wondering about unwaged workers, such as those who do house chores and/or take care of children and/or elderly family members and/or severely disabled family members. Usually these people are women. Are they granted status as working class? As a feminist, I believe they should be. But then we get into the tricky problem of the wives of the bourgeoisie. Yeah, I know they almost always have maids and servants to do much of this work for them, but they are still often involved in raising their children. I'm truly confused about what status to grant them.

In the post-nuclear world Revolution is impossible, therefore the system has to be destroyed from within.
This means that Anarchy has to achieve power through democratic means, by forming political parties and using the same tactics and techniques that capitalism has so expertly used to create a world of apathetic subservient fools.

Also, we shouldn't think that Anarchy is an end in itself, Anarchy is the next step in Evolution, not the last.

Anarkismo has a specific section to publish non anarchist material of interest called "non anarchist press". There we often publish non anarchist articles and press releases we receive that would not fit in the main newswire, but that have interest to our readers and groups around Anarkismo. Also, we often publish in that section some interesting news from the bourgeois press as well.

I can see the reason for publishing analytical articles of interest, but press releases from armed nationalist groups published without comment and accompanied by images culled from the PKK propaganda machine are something else entirely.

I mean, I can see how an article from the bourgeois press analysing the balance of power in the struggle between the Turkish state and the PKK could be 'of interest'. But I don't see why the PKK get a platform on here while, say, Turkish nationalists don't - its nationalist propaganda totally unrelated to class struggle anarchism either way, without any analytical merit.

Are the PKK seen as being in some way a progressive force by the Anarkismo team? Because I can't see any other rationale for posting their stuff without comment on here, as opposed to other nationalist groups.

For whom don´t undestand Spanish, what the comrade from Voz Negra (anarchist organisation from Chili) has said before me is that some opinions are eurocentric as they don´t recognise the fact that the imperialism and colonialism really exist and are important points in the revolutionary agenda (of course, for the libertarians too) in the most of the places of our world.

I share that opinion. It is, pitiless, very common in our circles confusing national liberation struggles with "nationalism". So, what we think about the anarchists comrades, as Makhno or the FCL folks, involved in national liberation struggles in Ukrania, Korea, Algeria, Latin America...?

One comrade has said that is better that Anarkismo publishes, in its section "Non anarchist press", the points of view of the bourgeois press better than the ones of an organisation fighting against imperial opression. And that, if we accept to publish the vision of the Kurdish organisations, we should give voice too to the ones supporting the imperial rule of the Turkish state. Putting in the same field oppresors and people who fight against oppresion: I think, precisely, that point is the unacceptable one in a press project for the exploited and oppresed as it is Anarkismo.

Person from Anarsist Federation say PKK and turkish nationalist are the same. To say this you need be stupid or ignorant. I think his the two, stupid and ignorant. Kurdish dont opress turkish people. Turkish nationalist opress kurdish people in terrible way. Kurdish is movement of pesants and workers, of poor people figthing opression and explotation with socialist objective. Turkish nationalists are ultra right movement that reject workers. Kurdish people believe that federation on middle east people is solution, no state can give solution to our national question. Turkish believe in the holy turkey state. PKK fight landlords and Aghas. Turkish nationalist ally with them.

Bad that anarkismo censore the kurdish liberation movement. Bad that anarkismo ally in praxis with turkey fascist. Probable we in Kurdistan need learn english language to understand revolution. Bad that anarsist federation dont have magazine in kurdish so we learn of powerful and strong revolutionary movement in britain and of great revolutionary praxis of anarsis federation. We welcome you in diyarbakir to lern from your revolutionary strugle.

Our Party about this item have the same opinion of comrades, and especifically of "Voz Negra". When we live in a third world country, we have to think our reality, one of this items are national liberation.

Ecuador has some Organizations in this struggle, and revolutionaries anarchists have to enter in these battle, this, in the idea of our Party.

This battle is important because our country -if I say: "our country" I´m not a national socialist or nazi!!!!!!!!!-, in the plural have too problems related whit colonial dependence, and other things, this things are not in the first world.

However, much comrades non want think about other realities in other "worlds", these worlds are in books or exotic photograpies for some of see "comrades", but, this "photograpies" are our reality, are our battle.

If you think national liberation is bad. For you "Socialismo del siglo XXII" is Anarchism?

This is a very unfortunate development. I can understand the unsurprising opinions held by members from an organisation whose only link to anarkismo has been to jump in an criticize it every time it dares to mention support to colonised people in their struggle to shake that yoke off (AF). But I can't understand that the editorial committee of this supposedly alternative media decide to hide statements from an organisation that at present is at the heart of Middle Eastern politics, that has been banned from mainstream media (so whose opinions can't be reached anywhere) and whose struggle is linked to that of our comrades in the region.

Is it that the anarkismo.net team are buying the following ludicrous argument by a certain Django?:
"I can see the reason for publishing analytical articles of interest, but press releases from armed nationalist groups published without comment and accompanied by images culled from the PKK propaganda machine are something else entirely. I mean, I can see how an article from the bourgeois press analysing the balance of power in the struggle between the Turkish state and the PKK could be 'of interest'. But I don't see why the PKK get a platform on here while, say, Turkish nationalists don't - its nationalist propaganda totally unrelated to class struggle anarchism either way, without any analytical merit."

How ridicoulous this position is can be summarised by the fact that according to Django (and I would take this opinion is representative of the AF), only national liberation movements (that he on bad faith lump as "nationalists") do "propaganda". The bourgeois press do not do any propaganda: they "inform", they are "objective", etc.. (Fortunately, we are talking of so called "class struggle" anarchists!)

So he'd rather give tribune and platform to the bourgeoisie than to a movement of armed peasants and workers, as Kurdo mentioned, fighting their own ruling class... only because this movement have dared to challenge their oppression as a community of people denied even the right to speak in public their language! this is an interesting analysis, and it can only derive from deeply ingrained colonial and imperialist prejudices, widespread among the average people of countries with an imperialist past and present. Instead of lviving in a pathological state of self denial they should challenge their own chauvinistic prejudices and cope on!

As long as people don't challenge their own prejudices, the abyss between people in the "north" and those in the "south" will only become bigger within the movement...

(In relation to national liberation movements, I think enough has been discussed in the following link as to come with this sort of stuff):

I am shocked to see here such an extreme ignorance about Kurdish question and PKK.

PKK has never described itself as a "nationalist movement", because it is a "national liberation movement". There is a different, right? However, "Turkish Marxists" (so, real nationalists) have stubbornly portrayed PKK as a "nationalist terror organization"!! Why? Because, in this way they could ignore the liberation movement and Kurds' demands, they was able to exclude them and able to not get into trouble! Ingenious! Who cares fucking Kurds? In the Marxist context, Kurds are nationalist and there is only way that emancipates them from feudal, behindhand emotions: join in the Turkish revolutionary movement!

Now, to learn there are colonialist idiots in the anarkismo is very grievous for me. Yes, it is a colonialist perspective that ignores a people's fighting against fascism and even think that a liberation movement and Turkish fascists is totally same thing... Eurocentric view could drag you into a septic tank. Stop think as a European parliamentarian because we, poor Kurds, really fucking hate this.

No country for Kurds, even in anarkismo! I get it, comrades...

PS: I will translate the discussion about Kurds into Kurdish and Turkish and I will publish.

Is the editorial board planning to restore the PKK articles or did they already accede to the wishes of this Django fellow? I frankly fail to understand how the Anarkismo board can take seriously such a strange argument as from said comrade, what is clearly no more "anarchist" than anything else when she/he can call upon bourgeois press "analysis" as more worthwhile than the views of a popular liberation movement in an oppressed corner of the world! I hope the editors will show good enough sense not take it's cue from such a backwards-thinking commenter.

We can debate whether PKK is "nationalist" but let's get certain things clear:

- it's well known the Kurds are brutally oppressed: even pamphlets I've read that criticize the PKK are quite clear about that
- therefore even assuming the "nationalist" spiel is accurate, there is a huge difference between airing the views of an oppressed group (even if one disagrees with them) and airing the views of Turkish colonizers
- anyway, it was specifically posted in the "non anarchist press" section, so I fail to see what the controversy is or why it should be removed

It should also be noted that Anarkismo is an international site for our movement, not just a platform for the views of a few (primarily anglophone) comrades. Clearly a number of comrades are interested to read this material. For christ's sake we are not talking about a Nazi article or indeed even a pro-Turkish colonialist article, we are talking about a leftwing, popular liberation movement! So in a way, yes, that answer's the question of whether it is seen as a progressive force -- clearly it is progressive, even if not anarchist.

It's worth noting too, a recent interview about the Kurdish question by one of our own writers here, and a short informational note afterward, that were both posted here: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14542
It's quite clear if you read these (contributed by our very own writers from Anarkismo) why someone could find such material of interest. That is a much better place to base research, anyway, than ignorant comments by some random malcontent.

In terms of the editorial discussion the issue is not 'nationalism' but rather that the PKK have an authoritarian history and politics that puts them a long way from the Anarkismo editorial guidelines. For the most part we don't publish press statements from authoritarian political organisations unless there is considerable merit in doing so.

There is a long discussion going on in our editorial forum, it may take some time yet for us to reach an agreement. When we do so that will be communicated here.

As input to the discussions of the editorial group, I would like to clarify a few points made by Andrew. As far as I can tell, the PKK does not have a clear profile as authoritarian as the comrade says, however, Turkish sources of the PKK know that people are quite interested in anarchism and that there have been some approaches in recent times.

Furthermore, the comparison made by the AF comrade about Turkish nationalists has no truth, because they (the "Grey Wolves") systematically attack the working class.

Finally, the PKK has a certain amount of influence from Kropotkin and Bookchin apart from their Marxist background, which gives them a much more varied profile than the way the AF comrade attempts to show.

Again, for those of us who have to deal with imperialism first-hand, the issue is much more important perhaps than for those living in oppressor countries, but we feel as an organization that the comrades of the "First World" should be able to analyse the situation from our point of view, as an integral part of the class struggle and in the midst of the deepest exploitation, leaving aside nonsensical slogans and the "principle-ism".

Anyway, the views of the Turkish and Kurdish comrades and of those who suffer the consequences of colonialism, should be enough for those who manage the anarkismo.net line, remembering that the people from the IFA are known to hold sectarian positions. With such first-hand precedents and comrades who show a keen interest in experiences such as this to develop their militancy embedded in the class struggle in Latin America, Asia and Africa, I cannot see how there can be so many problems regarding a question like the one posed by the English AF, which clearly has no grip.

PS: If Anglophones do not understand Spanish, please have someone translate it - I'm not good with English and indeed find it objectionable that discussions are taking place only in that language.

Does anyone have a notion in the editorial committee of this website how armed struggle looks like from the inside? Does anyone have a vague idea of the tough circumstances in which people like the Kurdish resistance have to make decisions? They certainly do not have luxury time for discussing tactics from an ivory tower as some comrades here can. I'm sure the members of the anarkismo committee may be full of tips on how to conduct armed resistance against an authoritarian, totalitarian and militaristic State in an immaculate fashion. I mean, this people -the Kurdish- are not hippies on a Sunday picnic in a Welfare State society. By these standards, not Makhno, not the Korean militants of Shin Chae Ho, not the Durruti column would have been likely to be published in anarkismo since they did more than one questionable action in the middle of their respective civil wars. They would not have stood a chance! Before making judgements like this, pleace appreciate that the PKK have had to take decisions in a much tougher context than anyone in the committee of this website.

But let's assume the PKK is an authoritarian organisation, whatever is meant by that. This is exactly the reason why the article did not appear on "other libertarian press" or in the "main newswire". This is not about endorsing everything this or that organisation has ever done. This is not about endorsing this or that tactic, this is about what are the sources we use to inform our opinion. I would expect from a website like this to open up spaces to listen to those voices often silenced by the Western media instead of reproducing the same filters.

Following discussion about the publication of these statements, a majority of the editorial committee has agreed that they are suitable for publication on Anarkismo.net under "non-anarchist press", which is a section of the site that is dedicated to news and views of sources outside the anarchist movement, but which we believe may be of interest to our readers for a variety of reasons.